[u b k]

i've just begun to check out his music tonight, so i'll reserve judgment... i generally need to hear an album 3 or 4 times before i can suss whether it speaks to me.

what i can say right now, though, is that illinoise does not sound remotely lo-fi to me. maybe standards have changed, but i'm listening to more than my fair share of 70's funk 45's lately and *that*, to me, is low fidelity recording.

illinoise has all the freqs from subs to air, the vocal treatments are sheeny and tightly compressed, the panning and layering all are very well done. there is no dirt, no grit, no grain, no boxiness, no hollowness, no edginess, no roughness whatsoever. it sounds very polished to me, very slick.

what exactly makes a recording qualify for lo-fi these days? does it just have to be less glossy than tla?


gregory scott - ubk
.